https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72523 The Court held that the Income Tax Officer's seizure of assets belonging to specific individuals not covered by the authorization under Sections 132 and 132-A of the Income Tax Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. Specific gold ornaments were ordered to be returned to the claimants as per the Panchnama, while the claim for certain items was rejected. Each party was directed to bear their costs, and the outstanding security amount was to be refunded to the petitioners. The Commissioner of Income Tax was not considered a necessary party in this context. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72523 The Court held that the Income Tax Officer's seizure of assets belonging to specific individuals not covered by the authorization under Sections 132 and 132-A of the Income Tax Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. Specific gold ornaments were ordered to be returned to the claimants as per the Panchnama, while the claim for certain items was rejected. Each party was directed to bear their costs, and the outstanding security amount was to be refunded to the petitioners. The Commissioner of Income Tax was not considered a necessary party in this context. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72523